Thursday, October 14, 2010


1. Declare an end to American Empire. Withdraw troops from military adventures in all foreign territories.

2. Audit the Pentagon, the Federal Reserve and all major corporations. Hold guilty parties accountable for fraud, corruption, deceit, extortion, unfair business practices, etc.

3. End the practice of allowing private banks to create fiat money, viz., the central bank known as the Federal Reserve. Then, when money is created it is created by the government. The multiplier benefit of fractional reserve banking and the interest on loans would then go directly into the United States Treasury, not to offshore banks to keep feeding the great Mammon known as the globalist corpocracy. Among its restorative effects? Deficit reduction, the terminating of both the unlawful income tax and property taxes (that make tenants of property owners), and immediate economic stimulation, inaugurating a new prosperity for all.

4. End federal government subsidies to industrial farmers, including the outlawing of factory farms for livestock. Heavily tax the production and use of synthetic fertilizers in order to promote organic farming. Work out a system for breaking down the huge monopolies on farmland into small traditional farm holdings whose operations follow the traditional farming methods of Joel Salatin and others like him. Discourage food processing that uses sugar (esp. high fructose corn syrup) and other food additives, and the long distance transportation of produce by taxing these things.

5. End government subsidies of and tax benefits to oil companies. Prohibit offshore drilling and drilling in or near delicate environments like the Arctic. Instead, offer subsidies and tax benefits to businesses developing alternative energies and the manufacturing of the systems that support them.

6. End the stranglehold on media by the corpocracy.

7. End the ownership of our healthcare system by insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies, and ban advertisements for prescription drugs. Prohibit hospitals from operating as for-profit entities.

8. End government involvement in education, except as a source of scholarships and as a guarantor of school loans.

9. End the practice of electing and appointing judges. Instead, require potential judges to pass an exam, which then puts them into a pool of candidates from which judges are then randomly selected.

10. End the private financing of political candidates, the two-party system, and the electoral college.

11. End the national security state by a top to bottom review and reform of all of the investigative and intelligence agencies.

12. End the involvement of sovereign governments in the production and sale of weapons and military equipment; heavily tax any manufacturing that turns out disposable products or designs for built-in obsolescence, remembering that taxation is a way to penalize, and thus discourage, products and activities that go against the public good.

Jonathan D. Suss is a cultural mutant multi-career virtuoso (blues piano player and singer, roofer, poet/writer, one-time military officer, lawyer, English professor, and Ph.D.) who is bereft of ambition to “be anything” in this phony baloney world – secular or otherwise. He is always on the look-out for an enlightened patrone from deep in the woods or from the plutocratic elite who also “sees thru the world” and may wish to join forces to further worthwhile underdog agendas by performing weird tasks, such as piercing the veil of corpocracy. Some of his ideas can be further studied at and he can be contacted at


Foreclosure used to be a cut and dried procedure. Those were the days when you got a mortgage loan from a bank and that bank held your promissory note, usually for 30 years, while you paid it down. At settlement you also signed a document known as a lien instrument, either a mortgage or a deed of trust, depending on what state you’re in. If you defaulted, the bank could foreclose on your real property, sell it, and recoup its investment. It was clean and simple and there were not many defenses available to the homeowner borrower. But that classic mortgage/foreclosure situation changed. It changed because banks started playing a game of musical chairs with home loans during the recent real estate bubble, roughly from the year 2000 through 2007, by “securitizing” it.

Instead of simply holding your note in its vault, banks began to use people’s loans as investment securities. Under the commercial law of each state, a promissory note (also known as a debt instrument) is a negotiable instrument. This means that the note itself represents value that can be negotiated in commerce, much like a check. “Negotiated” means that notes can be sold. Upon being sold a note is conveyed, i.e., assigned or transferred, to a new owner. This is done by indorsing the note. An indorsement is a stamp upon the note itself (or on a paper affixed to the note called an “allonge”). The stamp states, “Pay to the order of ___________. Without recourse.” It then recites the name of the entity that is conveying with a space for a person to sign who represents that entity and includes his or her title. (The indorsement is rarely, if ever, dated, though it certainly ought to be.) If it is indorsed to a specific entity, then only that entity owns your note; if it is indorsed in blank – that is, if the buyer or new owner is not named – then whoever possesses that original note is presumed to be its owner. That is the way that promissory notes are transferred or assigned (i.e., “negotiated”) in commerce. If the indorsement is blank the note is “bearer paper”; if the indorsement names a specific entity, then the note is called “order paper.” But this is just the beginning, the first hurdle when trying to find out who sold and who really owns your (soon-to-be securitized) note.

When a loan is securitized the note is commonly indorsed in blank. This allows whoever is in possession of the original note to claim ownership as a “holder.” When “securitized” a note commonly changes hands an average of four times. This seemingly allows many subsequent transferees who obtain possession of the original note to either resell it or enforce the note as bearer paper. As just mentioned, a new owner becomes what is called a “holder” of your loan and only a holder owns your loan and can enforce your note. Enforcing the note not only means that the holder has the right to foreclose if you default, it also means it can enforce all of the terms and conditions of the note, including the right to receive your payments. But all of this dry background, based on the commercial law of your state, is not the end of the story. It is only the beginning.

As stated above, Wall Street wanted the banks to turn these loans into securities. They did this by bundling them into packages of perhaps 1000 loans and offering them as a securitized trust package to investors. In this way Wall Street saw a way to reap huge profits. Now your note did not simply sit in the vault of the original lender, it became a negotiable instrument actively used to earn investors and those handling the investment transactions lots and lots of money.

At settlement you probably agreed to allow your loan to be assigned, but you never agreed to allow your loan to become a security and be bought and sold for the purposes of enriching other entities unknown to you. Now, if others are getting rich off of your indebtedness, doesn’t it stand to reason that new rights might inure to your benefit as a result of your debt instrument being unwittingly placed into the hands of those who are reaping financial gains from it?

To understand the new foreclosure defenses of homeowners, one must look to the chain of custody of the promissory note as it proceeds through the securitization process. Why? – because, as mentioned above, when “securitized” a note commonly changes hands an average of four times. In order for the loan to enter the securitization process it must be made a part of a securitized trust. As mentioned already, loans are bundled together. This bundling is known as “pooling.” The bank that originated your loan (the “originator”) sells your note (by ultimately indorsing it in blank). Your loan then starts its long journey into the bowels of a securitized trust pool, a black hole where the usual laws of commerce are further enhanced via federal (SEC) regulation.

The pool is first assigned a trust certificate number and offered to investors in a prospectus, as required under Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. The securitized trust is in turn subject to a pooling and security agreement (PSA) that is set forth in the prospectus. The prospectus is supposed to provide details about the investment offering for sale to the public so that an investor can make an informed investment decision. However, the nitty-gritty that sets forth the inter-relationships between the actors in the Trust is almost always exiled to a supplementary document called a Free Writing Prospectus, or FWP. The FWP often contains a flowchart entitled “Transaction Structure” reflecting in detail each step from origination of the sale to the asset pool.

The PSA has stringent transfer requirements that apply to your loan as it changes hands from one new owner/holder to another. These PSA transfer requirements are even more stringent than the commercial law of each state. Usually they require the note to be indorsed in blank but to list on the Note all the intervening indorsements for a complete chain of title. Thus, it must be shown that the transfer requirements were strictly adhered to as your note, i.e., your loan, changed hands. In the rush to harvest profits from your loan, these transfer requirements were rarely if ever adhered to.

Surprisingly, most foreclosure plaintiffs (usually attorneys who style themselves “substitute trustees” for the purported owner of the debt instrument) do not know the intricacies of these transfer requirements. More importantly, what plaintiffs’ attorneys fail to grasp is that if the transfer requirements are not adhered to, then no ownership interest is conveyed. This means that whoever purports to own and hold your loan – and authorize enforcement by appointing substitute trustees to foreclose – in reality owns and holds nothing and has no authority to appoint substitute trustees or to do anything else to enforce the note.

New Defenses: Show Me the Note and Show Me the Chain-of-Custody Indorsements on the Note
The first thing a homeowner borrower might do who has stopped paying his or her mortgage, or received a Notice of Intent to Foreclose, is to contact a reputable company specializing in the forensic examination of the loan settlement papers. The examination should be ordered promptly as it may take up to sixty days to complete. Very often, RESPA (Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act) or TILA (Truth in Lending Act) violations are detected. Violations of such federal statutes can impute consequences to the originator bank that may be sufficient to “taint” the validity of the loan. Having such powerful evidence at the ready can be a useful tool that one can use to convince a bank to sit up and take notice of a borrower. Banks who previously stonewalled borrower efforts to contact them and negotiate with them may suddenly seem quite receptive to what you have to say.

The next “new” defense that a homeowner has is to insist that the plaintiff produce the original note for inspection in court. Because possession is indicative of ownership when the note is indorsed in blank, then it seems both logical and just that presentment of the original should be required, especially if the homeowner raises the issue as a defense. In fact, there is often a provision in the foreclosure rules for requesting supplemental documents that are (theoretically at least) in possession and control of the plaintiff or secured party and this provision can be used as a basis for requiring presentment of the original note.

Secondly, the note must be inspected for indorsements. These indorsements must indicate the chain of custody of that note from the originator to the entity claiming to own the note in the foreclosure proceeding. The defendant should come to court with the PSA and demand that the indorsements on the note indicate clearly that the note has been properly transferred in accordance with the transfer requirements contained in that PSA. Plaintiffs’ attorneys regularly march into court baldly proclaiming ownership when the copy of the note they filed into the court record recites a completely different entity. Let me repeat – they only need to present a copy of that note in order to foreclose on the purported debt and take away the borrower’s property!

An informed defendant must demand strict proof by way of demanding the original note that indicates thereon the proper indorsements all along the chain-of-custody of that note. Following this methodology it can often be established that the defendant is in fact not in default to a foreclosing plaintiff because that purported owner of the debt has absolutely no ownership rights and therefore no standing whatsoever to have access to the court for the purpose of foreclosing on the borrower defendant. That is, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when a plaintiff has no standing to sue you. The imposter is NOT a bona fide holder of your note. The poseur entity suing you is only a “pretender lender,” and its enforcer attorneys should be run out of town on a rail for not doing their due diligence to determine whether the “bankster” they represent is actually the legal owner of the debt.

Still, the plaintiff is left in a bind. Because the originator of the loan has indorsed the note in blank, it is no longer (and can no longer ever be) the owner; and because the note was never negotiated properly from that point onward, no one in the chain of custody can establish valid ownership. The note is effectively in a black hole wherein there can be no owner or holder of the note. The debt is not so much discharged as unenforceable. Why? – because it has almost never been properly indorsed according to the PSA requirements.

It may be argued, however, that perhaps the first entity that bought your loan, the first transferee is a bona fide holder. That is, the first indorsement by the originator was effective under the commercial law to transfer the note and convey ownership before the loan was placed into the securitization trust; subsequent transfers were ineffective because they did not comport with the PSA transfer requirements. What about that argument? Perhaps that first transferee is a bona fide holder who has standing to demand payments and foreclose on the homeowner borrower.

But what if, as often is the case, that first valid transferee was FannieMae or FreddieMac? These hybrid government entities are not known for foreclosing on homeowners. Can they do so via an agent such as the current servicer? There is a section in the commercial law that allows for a nonholder in possession of the instrument who has the rights of a holder to enforce the debt instrument. See UCC 3-301(ii). Could the plaintiff argue that the bona fide holder, e.g., FannieMae or FreddieMac can execute a power of attorney appointing, for example, the servicer who receives a borrower’s monthly payments as attorney-in-fact for purposes of foreclosing upon a homeowner? There is case law that says NO. In Maryland a secured party is “any person who has an interest in property secured by a lien or any assignee or successor in interest to that person. The term includes: (1) the mortgagee; [and] (2) the holder of a note secured by a deed of trust.” Maryland Rule 14-202(k)(1)(2).

What is known is that these defenses, at a minimum, can certainly slow down the foreclosure process – and rightfully so. After all, taking a home from a person or a family is serious business. And doesn’t defective foreclosure have Constitutional implications? Do not citizen homeowners have a right to be secure in their homes by being afforded the due process guaranteed to them under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution (not to mention their respective state constitutions)?

Indorsement Mills
The setting up of “indorsement mills” is one devious way banks are trying to cover themselves for their failure to have had notes indorsed according to the state commercial law and/or the PSA transfer requirements. An “indorsement mill” is a place where clerical staff sit around all day stamping and signing indorsements onto original notes. These indorsements should have been performed and completed long ago, of course, when the note was repeatedly negotiated as it proceeded through the securitization process. Indorsement mill staff have been “deputized” as V.P.s (“Vice Presidents” of, e.g., Option One or Deutsche Bank or Citi Residential Lending) when in fact they all work for an entity such as Nationwide Title Clearing or some similar entity. The banks are of course cashing in on the fact that indorsements do not need to be dated – as unbelievable as that may sound. And so, I suppose the rationale is something like, “Well, if they need not be dated, then let’s just get them on there!”

Is this legal? Or more importantly perhaps, are the indorsements legally enforceable? Banks apparently seem to think that such indorsement mills are legitimate and what they are doing there has legal efficacy. Courts, on the other hand, may have a very different opinion on the matter. But, in order for it to be made an issue, the question needs to be asked in court: “Were these indorsements stamped on the note as it was negotiated through the securitization process or were these indorsements provided after-the-fact?” As none of these indorsements have dates, in order to authenticate them in a court of law it would be necessary for each of the persons having indorsed them to appear in court and testify and be cross-examined as to that fact. An attorney/substitute trustee has no personal knowledge on this point and cannot testify as to its authenticity. Can a defendant borrower insist that this be done? Most certainly. Will the judge permit it? It depends upon how interested the judge is in adhering to the rules of evidence. Foreclosure proceedings are not traditionally long, drawn-out affairs. It may require a countercalim and/or an appeal.

Require Proof that the “Defaulted” Loan Has Not Already Been Paid, either by Default Insurance or by TARP Money
There is one more defense in the trick-bag of the Defendant. When a loan was securitized, very often the various players – from the intermediate holders to the investors – covered their risk by purchasing default insurance. This would enable them to recoup the major portion of their investment, even if they suddenly find that they “have no chair to sit in when the music stops.”

AIG was in the business of providing just such insurance. During the recent sub-prime mortgage meltdown AIG paid and paid big, until they almost toppled over. But the federal government rescued AIG, propping them up by providing TARP money to them and other financial institutions; whatever money was needed to cover losses was provided. That is, in the “security trust casino,” banks can gamble all they want and if they lose, they can still cover their losses; they can still walk out of the casino almost unscathed.

What this means for a homeowner is that a short period of time after the mortgage payments stop (unbeknownst to the borrower) the note holder – as well as others claiming an interest – may already have collected most of the balance of what is owed. In fact, as bizarre as it may sound, the claim may already have been paid not to just one party, but perhaps to three parties, each of whom had a default insurance policy in place. Could it be that your loan has been paid – three times over? Some things are stranger than fiction and this is one of them. Insurance is another concern of the securitized trust that is addressed in the PSA.

Thus the homeowner defendant must insist that any third party payments be divulged to the court as a condition precedent to a judge allowing a foreclosure to proceed. The mechanism for any such request might be in the form of a sworn affidavit from the bona fide holder and the substitute trustees attesting that no such third party payments have been made. Willful (or even negligent) misrepresentation of this fact, should result in a total forfeiture of the holder’s lien or security interest, and should include severe penalties to both the holder and the substitute trustees (who are almost always attorneys). Committing a fraud on the court, especially by officers of the court, should carry grave consequences.

The foreclosure defenses discussed herein can usually buy more time for the homeowner. And obviously, they are designed to put homeowners in a better bargaining position so that they have leverage to force a HAMP modification, or a modification based on prior RESPA or TILA violations. But more importantly, these defenses are meant to put the foreclosing plaintiffs on notice that they cannot just mindlessly steamroll over the rights of homeowners with the usual, cookie-cutter documents. Empowering defendant homeowners in this way allows them to demand that, if banks intend to take their homes away, everything better be in perfect order, substantively and procedurally. The foreclosure defenses are not designed to help people live in their homes mortgage-free, although in some cases that could very well end up being the case – and if that happens then banks have only themselves to blame.

If a homeowner is hoping to be in the best possible position (i.e., staying in one’s home without ever having to pay another mortgage payment, giving new definition to the expression being “home-free”) at this writing it seems that this could result from one of only four possible scenarios.

1.) The bona fide owner/holder of you note does not have the original note (it has been lost, stolen, or otherwise destroyed) and cannot prove that it was in its possession at the time it was lost, stolen or otherwise destroyed; or,
2.) The bona fide owner/holder of the original note does not wish to sue and foreclose upon the homeowner because to do so would be an admission against interest. Lenders are now being sued by certificate holders whose investments lost money due to just the sort of negligence that turned these lenders into owner/holders by legal default. To foreclose would be to admit that they, indeed, however unwittingly, retained their ownership interest when in fact they were supposed to have transferred that ownership interest to other entities in the securitized trust; or,
3.) The bona fide owner/holder is a financial institution that is no longer in business; or,
4.) After a so-called “default,” a claim was made against the default insurance, and/or the loss from the “default” was offset by TARP funds provided by the federal government. If the bona fide holder of a homeowner’s loan has already been paid in full, then that holder is certainly not entitled to be paid yet again. Case closed.

What homeowners should take away from all of this is that if they are foreclosed upon they should not accept that situation at face value. They need to make the foreclosing plaintiff prove who owns their loan. Without proof as to who owns the loan there can be no default. They might just as well say that you are in default to the man-in-the-moon. Make them produce the note, demand the chain-of-custody of that note, and require them to prove that each purported holder of your note has indorsed it correctly. Only when all of this documentary evidence is presented to the court might there then be an actual foreclosure by a party validly authorized to take your home from you.

In the rush to reap huge profits and fees, the improper short-cuts taken by financial institutions (and now by their enforcers) must result in some very hard lessons learned. These folks are now looking for ways to make sure that at least one bona fide holder can find a seat in their game of musical chairs. Be that as it may, when servicing lenders themselves cannot tell you who owns your original note, and when lawyers and judges don’t understand this convoluted securitized trust business, it is up to the homeowner borrower to educate his- or herself and to take charge themselves.

So, borrowers need to know their rights in foreclosure (or need to start educating their attorneys) in order to defend themselves and save their homes. After all, one’s home is certainly worth fighting for, is it not? Boning up helps one to resist the old-style “steam-roller and cookie-cutter” practices that foreclosure firms have grown so accustomed to prior to more homeowner-friendly revisions to foreclosure statutes and rules being undertaken by legislatures across the country.

Saturday, January 9, 2010


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.

My doctoral research focused on the intersection of law and consciousness. In my work I tried to articulate a kind of attractor basin [1] meant to orient human consciousness so as to remake the world into one that embraces global democracy, economic justice, and civil society. This is in contrast to a world that suffers, at present, from the deleterious effects of empire-driven policies and those actions of corporate capitalism that have caused such misery for people worldwide. [2] The remaking of the world is no utopian pipe-dream but rather a bottom-up phenomenon that is already underway.[3] Using a relational/ participatory frame [4] of consciousness, networks of problem-solving cultural creatives from diverse backgrounds are working to ameliorate and ultimately supplant harsh socioeconomic, political, and environmental policies. These actors are transforming the world by attuning human systems to a more human scale, one that is capable of meeting the needs and concerns of people and the planet more readily and more equitably.[5]

A major block to effective change in human systems is the undue influence wielded by what has been called corpocracy (or corporatocracy).[6] The aim of my research is to suggest human system alternatives to those de facto inhumane systems established and preserved by corpocracy.[7] From the stance of a worldview that embraces a new consciousness of integral values, the avaricious consumerist/materialist, Cartesian frame-of-reference (i.e., the top-down status quo values and agenda of an entrenched, global corpocracy) would no longer be viable. Indeed, the timeworn notion of an insular sovereignty – with institutions that serve immediate self-interests of power elites governing each nation-state or a cartel of powerful nation-states – has become anachronistic, all but bankrupt, and increasingly dangerous in the 21st century.

According to my doctoral research, at some point in pre-history there occurred a crack in a formerly all-pervasive originary [8] custom that was in symbiotic balance with the nature-centered consciousness of primal peoples. Recovering something of the values that we have lost from originary custom may lead us back to becoming more Earth-centered, more grounded and thus more egalitarian. Such values result from an awareness coming to be known as ecopsychology.[9] To this end it is helpful to review participatory field research among primal societies wherein researchers have been able to immerse themselves in originary custom, a simpler way bereft of law as it is commonly conceived of in modern, industrialized societies.[10} Such heuristic immersions reveal invaluable instances of “linking back” to human values uncontaminated by modernist deformities.[11]

A worldview informed by integral consciousness [12] would see politics, culture, and spirituality evolving via a transformative unfolding that draws on wider epistemologies and integral values of the heart, i.e., the moral and spiritual dimensions of empathy for each other, for all living things, and for all life-sustaining qualities of our environment. Accordingly, an integral jurisprudence (that includes yet transcends the hard-won liberal gains of ages past) might offer the world a democratic global authority [13] that is not based on violence, oppression, and environmental destruction (viz., corporate globalism).

One major tool for precipitating such a consciousness shift is the language we use. I believe that we must learn to question the presumptions that invisibly inhere in everyday dualistic/mechanistic think-speak via a relational/participatory frame. By changing the epistemological framing and contextualizing the language, one can ultimately affect the substantive content. This essential skill of critical thinking can help to remake the world. It does so by orienting human consciousness to participate in genuine discourse on issues of global democracy, economic justice, and civil society.

What results is transformative institution-building based upon 1) envisioning and founding improved emancipatory and regulatory human systems that give impetus to what is being referred to as global governance [14] structured and nurtured in large measure by 2) reconfiguring the notion of national sovereignty in accordance with what has been dubbed “evolutionary idealism” [15] and/or via a model known as “disaggregated sovereignty”.[16] In sum, the ultimate goal would be to establish many “living” community environments [17] under the umbrella of a de facto world federation.

The fragmentation of our mental-rational world calls for healing. By revisiting originary custom, humanity can re-discover values it discarded when it veered onto the path of an acculturated custom that led to its civilizational project. In this sense, engaging the harmonizing powers of shamanic guidance is arguably not a retro-romantic reversion but rather an upsurgence of integral consciousness steeped in heuristic, process-oriented, polymorphic experience.[18] Again, recovering something of what we have lost may lead us to what we can become.[19] What we can become is also a symbiotic function of how we frame our language and think and act from a relational/participatory frame of consciousness. Drawing primarily on the work of theorists referred to herein, I propose weaving the values of originary custom and integral consciousness, into a work meant as a kind of new “Guide for the Perplexed.”[20]

Ultimately, the Cartesian frame can be understood as simply a small part of a much bigger frame – one that delights in wholeness, justness, fairness and a humanitas that is deeply rooted in the wisdom of nature and a worldview less identified to itself, more nuanced. That is, a holistic, integral worldview includes-yet-circumscribes the non-holistic, Cartesian frame that is a part within a more capacious frame of consciousness with a much higher order of complexity – a complexity founded upon a simpler way that is being intuited by more and more people.[21] How to develop and articulate all of the above into an attractor basin for human consciousness that can be apprehended and accessed – and thus practiced and learned – is the goal of my research, my life’s work, and the heart of this book proposal.

Significance of the Book
My book seeks to demonstrate how consensual (or consensus) reality acts as an ontological anchor of consciousness that dominates human perceptions and guides one’s worldview via a particular culture trance. The result, I contend, is that many in the developed world overwhelmingly suffer a psychological disconnect from their true, natural state and wholeness-of-being. I refer to this disconnect as dissociation. Consequently, human systems have come to reflect the malignancy of a corpocracy, that – in the name of neo-liberal, “free market” capitalism – has subtly traded democratic values and the ideals of liberty for rank, neo-conservative materialism based on a petro-dollar enforced via the militarism of over 800 US bases overseas. My research would propose a way out of our shared ontological nightmare via a rejection of consensual reality and culture trance in favor of an embrace of “living” communities that, e.g., include the home-schooling of children to combat falsities in consciousness and culture.

How My Book Project Relates to the Publishing Strategy of _______
The impression is that _______ publishes books that conform to academic standards but are stylistically accessible and generally written with the non-academic in mind. It is my intention to re-work my dissertation in such a way as to appeal to the educated layman. A review of _______’s authors page indicates a congruency between the type of subject matter published by ________ and the panarchistic/eco-minded/libertarian aspects of that which is being proposed herein. My book exhorts the reader to “beware the dark side” of modern mass societies and global development. It bemoans the demise of the traditional multicelluar polity, advocating development that is attuned to the innate dignity of common people and their democratic hopes – rather than one that is subservient to the dictates and agenda of a global corpocracy. This is a rugged individualism that trades dependency on specialists for the sharing of skill sets from a knowledge bank within one’s own locale. It is a melding of traditional living into an informed, self-reliant and thus a transformational society. Originary values infused into human systems that are supported by a new consciousness transcending linguistic presumptions, may present the most valuable experiential lesson of the century, thus making this a book project worthy of publication and deserving of broad dissemination.



1. A converging ensemble of “information” fields or states of being/becoming, akin to David Bohm’s “quantum potential” (Bohm, 1952) or to Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphogenetic field” (Sheldrake, 2005).

2. Johnson, 2007; Johnson 2004; Johnson, 2000; Perkins, 2007; Perkins, 2004.

3. Mare, 2000; Global Ecovillage Network, n.d.; Gaia Trust,. n.d.; Trainer, 2000

4. A frame wherein the consciousness knows itself to be inside and part of the total complex reality, related to all other parts, and knowing that all other parts are similarly inside and part of the complexity, and are related to other parts. Out of such a consciousness a person thinks and articulates from this relational/participatory perspective (E.g., Participatory Action Research; also see, Berman, 2000; Abram, 1996, Clastres, 1989; Gebser, 1985; Bateson, 1972).

5. Schumacher, 1973; Papworth, 1995; 2006; Sale, 2000; Kohr, 1957/1978

6. De facto rule by mega-corporations in conjunction with international banking, corporate-owned media, and the enabling collusion of a militarist government and/or a network of such governments (Perkins, 2004; 2007; Johnson, 2000; 2004; 2007; Hartmann, 2002; 2006; Bakan, 2004; Drutman, 2004; Nader, 2004; Kelly, 2001, 2003; Raskin, 2003; Derber, 1998, 2000; Edwards, 1995); Cf. the military-industrial complex.

7. E.g., the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund, a debilitated United Nations, etc.

8. “Originary” is a term borrowed from integral theorist Jean Gebser (1985), appearing in his index and synonymous with primal/ primordial phenomena; original does not carry the requisite sense of timelessness freed from a spatially-bound reality; Gebser refers to “originary” as being, by its nature, “spiritual.” (Gebser, 1985, p.39)

9. Roszak, et al., 1995

10. E.g., Clastres, 1989

11. E.g., Liedloff, 1986

12. McIntosh, 2007

13. E.g., The Earth Charter – a global initiative that began in the 1990s that is a kind of Declaration of Interdependence or international Bill of Rights that is steeped in integral values whose inclusive ethical vision recognizes that environmental protection, human rights, equitable human development, and peace are interdependent and indivisble. The Earth Charter was drafted in coordination with a legally binding, hard law treaty designed to provide a legal framework for all environmental development law and policy. This hard law treaty is called the International Covenant on Environment and Development. It is being prepared by the Commission on Environmental Law at the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN brings together 82 states, 111 government agencies, more than 800 non-governmental organizations, some 10,000 scientists, and experts from 181 countries into a unique worldwide partnership. Earth Charter Initiative. (n.d.). Earth Charter Initiative. The Earth Charter International Secretariat. Retrieved on April 11, 2009, from

14. Global governance helps by regulating interdependent relations via a complex of formal and informal institutions, mechanisms, relationships, and processes between and among states, markets, citizens and organizations, both inter- and non-governmental. It is in this way that collective interests on the global plane are articulated, rights and obligations are established, and differences are mediated. The literature indicates that a niche for global governance is especially crucial to develop as the international system reshapes itself in the 21st century. (Thakur & Weiss, n.d.;, n.d.)

15. Litfin, 2001

16. Slaughter, 2004

17. A “living” environment is a place that engages in a life of satisfying simplicity with maximum self-sufficiency and minimum use of money, where real food is grown, and where people have access to nature and to holistic healing programs. 18. Mindell, A., 1993; 2007

19. Megre, 2005

20. Schumacher, 1973

21. Ray & Anderson, 2000; Trainer, 2000


Abram, D. (1996). The spell of the sensuous: Perception and language in a more-than-human world. New York: Vintage Books.

Bakan, J. (2004) The corporation: The pathological pursuit of profit and power. New York: Free Press.

Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to an ecology of mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Berman, M. (2000). Wandering god: A study in nomadic spirituality. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Bohm, D. (1952). “A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of ‘Hidden’ Variables, I and II,” Physical Review, Vol. 85: pp.166-193.

Clastres, P. (1989). Society against the state: Essays in political anthropology. NY: Zone Books.

Derber, C. (1998, 2000). Corporation nation: How corporations are taking over our lives and what we can do about it. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin.

Drutman, L. & Cray, C. (2004) The people’s business: Controlling corporations and restoring democracy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Edwards, D. (1995). Burning all illusions. Boston: South End Press.

Gaia Trust.(n.d.). Retrieved on September 26, 2009, from
Gebser, J. (1985). The ever-present origin. (Barstad, N., & Mickunas, A., Trans.) Athens, OH: Ohio University Press. (Original work published 1949, 1953).

Global Ecovillage Network. (n.d.). Retrieved on Sept. 26, 2009, from (n.d.). Working Papers Series. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2007 from

Hartmann, T. (2006). Screwed: The undeclared war against the middle class – and what we can do about it. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Hartmann, T. (2002). Unequal protection: The rise of corporate dominance and the theft of human rights. Emmaus, PA: Rodale.

Johnson, C. (2000). Blowback: The costs and consequences of American empire; (2004). The sorrows of empire: Militarism, secrecy, and the end of the republic; (2007). Nemesis: The last days of the American republic (American empire project) NY: Metropolitan.

Kelly, M. (2001, 2003). The divine right of capital: Dethroning the corporate aristocracy. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Kohr, L. (1957, 1978). The breakdown of nations. E.P. Dutton:NY.

Liedloff, J. (1986). The continuum concept: In search of happiness lost. Perseus Press.

Litfin, K. (2001, April 6-11) Secularism, sovereignty and the challenge of global ecology: Towards a new story. Paper presented in a workshop at the 2001 “Global Ecological Crisis and the Nation-State: Sovereignty, Economy, Ecology,” Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium on Political Research, Grenoble, France.

Mare, E.C. (2000). A concise history of the global ecovillage movement. Retrieved on September 26, 2009, from

McIntosh, S. (2007). Integral consciousness and the future of evolution: How the integral worldview is transforming politics, culture and spirituality. St Paul, MN: Paragon House.

Megre, V. (2005). Anastasia. (Book 1 of The Ringing Cedars Series, Eight vols., Sharashkin, L., Ed.; Woodsworth, J. Trans.) Columbia, Missouri: Ringing Cedars Press.

Mindell, A. (2007). Earth-based psychology: Path awareness from the teachings of Don Juan, Richard Feynman, and Lao Tse. Portland, OR: Lao Tse Press.

Mindell, A. (1993). The Shaman’s Body: A new shamanism for transforming health, relationships, and the community. San Francisco: HarperCollins.

Nader, R. (2004). The good fight: Declare your independence and close the democracy gap. New York: Regan Books.

Papworth, J. (2006). Village democracy.

Papworth, J. (1995). Small is powerful: The future as if people really mattered.

Perkins, J. (2004). Confessions of an economic hit man. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Perkins, J. (2007). The secret history of the American empire: Economic hit men, jackals, and the truth about global corruption. New York: Dutton.

Raskin, J. (2003). Overruling democracy: The Supreme Court vs. the American people. NY: Routledge.

Ray, P., & Anderson, S. R. (2000). The cultural creatives: How 50 million people are changing the world. New York: Harmony Books.

Roszak, T., Gomes, M. E., & Kanner, A. D., (Eds.). (1995). Ecopsychology: Restoring the Earth, healing the mind. San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Sale, K. (2000). Dwellers in the land: The bio-regional vision; Schumacher, E.F.. (1973). Small is beautiful: Economics as if people mattered.

Schumacher, E.F. (1977). A guide for the perplexed. New York: Harper & Row.

Sheldrake, R. (2005). Morphic fileds and morphic resonance: An introduction. Retrieved Oct., 14, 2007 from

Slaughter, A. (2004, Spring). Disaggregated sovereignty: Towards the public accountability of global government networks,” Government and Opposition, Vol. 39 Issue 2, p. 159.

Thakur, R. & Weiss, T.G. (n.d.). The UN and global governance: An idea and its prospects. Retrieved Oct. 18, 2007 from

Trainer, T. (July 2000). Where are we, where do we want to be, how do we get there? Democracy & Nature, Vol. 6, No. 2